Bug#397973: Processed: upping severity, as discussed with Steve ...
severity 397973 serious
# 12:18 < vorlon> fjp: I would think that not being able to do a RAID install
# should be considered RC these days, do you disagree?
thanks
On Fri, Jan 12, 2007 at 03:08:21PM +0100, Frans Pop wrote:
>
> On Friday 12 January 2007 10:33, Debian Bug Tracking System wrote:
> > Bug#397973: [powerpci/mac] partman-md appears to not write back the
> > raid flag to partitions. Severity set to `serious' from `important'
>
> I don't agree that this issue is RC. It does not match any of the
> criteria.
>
> 1) This issue does not actually break anything. It just makes it
> impossible to make use of an optional feature (software RAID) during
> installation.
>
> 2) The issue affects only a limited group of users as it is architecture
> specific: software RAID support in partman works just fine on at least
> i386, amd64, sparc and hppa. I'm not sure about other architectures, but
> at least we have no reports of breakage there.
>
> 3) There is no regression, or at least, I do not see how there can be as
> software RAID support and general partman code has not been touched at
> that level during Etch development. This rather looks like an incomplete
> implementation of software RAID support for this particular architecture.
> As such, and since there currently (unfortunately) is no lead partman
> maintainer, it is primarily the responsibility of the PowerPC community
> to provide the missing bits and pieces needed to implement the support.
>
> So, IMO as D-I RM, this issue does not make partman-md "unsuitable for
> release".
12:18 < vorlon> fjp: I would think that not being able to do a RAID install
should be considered RC these days, do you disagree?
What else is there to say ...
> Note for future reference: this BR is possibly related to:
> http://bugs.debian.org/392764
Unrelated, this was, to the best of my knowledge, a separate bug, which i
investigated and fixed, and colin had already fixed for ubuntu and commented
on it later on. It is unrelated to this bug.
Friendly,
Sven Luther
Reply to: